Monday, October 20, 2014

My Reply [the closest thing to a debate on the issues possible with Paul Cook dodging forums]

[SINCE PAUL COOK WON'T ATTEND CANDIDATE FORUMS--THIS IS MY SUBSTITUTE FOR ISSUE BY ISSUE COMPARISONS--it replies to an article ( that appeared in the San Bernardino Sentinal newspaper, the link to which is above in the title] 
Mark (the publisher of the San Bernardino Sentinel):
Its obvious that Paul Cook avoids the issues, forums and debates at which the issues can be aired out. His votes are terrible for our District!!
1. The 100,000 acres he "saved" for off-road vehicle use is illusory. I was in 29 Palms this past Saturday talking with off roaders and they know the truth--the Marines have the right to take it back all the land by simply saying they need it for training. It was an illusory "save" of the resource-- a face-saving smoke and mirror rear action;
2. As for prioritizing VA claims, ask him what the changes were, and did he and his fellow Boehner adherents really do anything? They are mostly Vietnam vets whose problem is with the underfunded claim review and appeal system, the inadequate staffing at VA facilities (the House refused to take up the McCain-Sanders VA bill which would increase staffing) and having little to no VA sponsored advocacy assistance (which the private sector can be encourage to help with appropriate legislation)--additionally, NOTHING was done by the republican Congress' bill to improve staffing to handle the claim review (and appeals) more objectively and comprehensively for not just this election cycle, but the future
3. The land exchange is interesting, but the people, tribes and or agencies whose land the federal government would be taking haven't been asked if they are ok with it. Is this another government taking without compensation in the wind?
4. Taking credit for reducing the deficit is funny--the sequestration did that which had nothing to do with the current Congress; sorry Paul, don't claim credit where you did not do anything except collect your salary and send out misleading newsletters and flyers;
5. Cook's votes will INCREASE the deficit--just over time so he does not get blamed?
(a) Cook's vote on  HR 2575 will increase the Budget deficit $25.4 billion for the period of 2015-2019 and by $73.7 billion over the 2015-2024 period according to the Congressional Budget Office & the Joint Committee on Taxation, non partisan think tanks
(b) Cook voted yeah on another (duplicative) "Research Tax Credit"--the problem is that cost was not paid for by reductions in any other programs--the effect, taxes will have to be increased to subsidize those giveaways;
(c) Abandoning the Affordable Care Act, will INCREASE the costs of Medicare by taking away the "Young Senior" benefits (aged 50-64), making the people to make it to Medicare eligibility, more impacted by chronic diseases and degenerative conditions that will not get the medical management they would under the "Young Senior" ACA benefits;
6. Paul Cook's makes the claim he wants to fight for constitutional rights--he really does not mean that when he complains he is being "attacked" by me and Paul Hanosh--first, he dodged every forum and debate set up, so its not really clear what his positions are and how (and if) he can back them; second,  Paul needs a history lesson--in the Marines, questioning the authority of your leaders may be an attack; in federal political elections [a new forum for someone highly protected by the State GOP for years--maybe too much so]  we need to distinguish ourselves and be able to stand up and defend the claims being made so the people have the basis to make an informed choice--it's called robust debate--a constitutional principal under the first amendment, so why is he criticizing his opponents? Does he want everyone to get blinded by the service medals and title and, like in the Marine Corps, just shut up?? We have not, and will not Paul Cook. Get a backbone and just maybe if you win, you can really become the leader in Congress you haven't been; third, Paul voted yes to HR 3964, which strips our agencies and courts of the review time they have always needed to look at water project proposals--this is avoiding free speech for special interests to steal water from farmers--with Cadiz and PG&E, don't we have enough of that going on Paul? Opps, I forgot how Cook loves them corporations, giving Monsanto immunity to legal actions and price fixing power over aspects of the agricultural industry they are increasingly controlling;
7. Lowering taxes is the OPPOSITE of what he has done--consider the following:
   (a). Cook voted yeah on HR 4935, bill which will take away a tax credit of $1,725 per year FROM 5,000,000 single moms with two children and cutting the tax credit for 6,000,000 more single moms--that is a TAX increase Mr. Cook!
   (b) HR 4935 will INCREASE the tax credit for families with children making $150,000 per year to $2,200-nothing like taking care of the well heeled at the expense of the lower income families struggling
   (c) Cook increased the government guaranteed student loan interest rate--a de facto tax hike for struggling students that we want to stay off public assistance;.
8. Cook's legislative votes will take jobs away
   HR 5078 & HR 3964 (which Cook voted for) will cost California thousands of jobs per the Congressional Budget Office as it will created penalties for employers, that they will have to pay with reduced hours/potentially layoffs and/or force fields to go fallow for new corporate farmers, which will cause more loss in existing local jobs;
9. The lead statement in your article, if from Cook, is nothing short of amazing [Inadequate Presidential Response Shifts the Burden to Congress]. Boehner, Cook's boss, had roughly 93 days of session, but were paid for a year of work--working a third of the year is hardly taking on a burden.
Cook needs to defend his votes with something more specific than he is being attacked.  I want a chance to be a part of the solution-finding process--not rubber-stamping failed policies and tactics.
Bob Conaway
Candidate for the 8th CD

Sunday, October 12, 2014

On English Only Surveys Candidates See this Time of Year

By the time California's first constitution was drafted in 1849, the Gold Rush had already transformed the state's Spanish-speakers into a minority (13,000 of nearly 100,000 residents). Without opposition, however, delegates to California's Constitutional convention in 1849 approved an important recognition of Spanish language rights:

"All laws, decrees, regulations, and provisions emanating from any of the three supreme powers of this State, which from their nature require publication, shall be published in English and Spanish." So it seems the tradition California's founding fathers had in 1849 a different idea [].
Mr. Ayers who represented the Los Angeles area testified in 1849 testified :"Mr. AYERS. ... In the section of the State which I represent [Los Angeles County] there are large portions of it which are entirely populated by a Spanish-American population, not a foreign population, but a population who were here before we were here, and I wish to say that almost without an exceptional instance these natives of California, who were adults at the time this State was ceded to the United States by Mexico, are still in the same condition, as far as their knowledge of English is concerned. There are but very few of them, if any, who understand our language at all, and, if I am not mistaken, in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo there was an assurance that the natives should continue to enjoy the rights and privileges they did under their former Government, and there was an implied contract that they should be governed as they were before. It was in this spirit that the laws were printed in Spanish.
One of the other delegates [a Judge Rolfe from San Bernardino] saied, "there are townships in Southern California which are entirely Spanish, or Spanish-American. ... [I]t would be wrong, it seems to me, for this Convention to prevent these people from transacting their local business in their own language. It does no harm to Americans, and I think they should be permitted to do so... .This is not a question of demagogism, or partisanism; it is a question of right. Now, I know that in Southern California there are districts and communities that are so entirely Spanish that if you deprive them of the right to continue their proceedings in Justices' Courts in Spanish, you will deprive them of justice".
See also:
Kinda suggests the Spanish language is part of the fabric of what California was founded on?? It seems if Ayers is right, then to impose in the acquired territories under that Treaty an English Only rule, would violate that law??
What says you??
Taking this further, are we denying as Ayers suggests, depriving the Spanish speaking only population of justice by English only courtrooms?

Friday, October 10, 2014

Campaign rumblings

Went to forum @ Immanuel Baptist Church on October 9th in Highland, CA hosted by Immanuel Baptist Church’s Salt and Light Ministry . It was well run, video-ed and of course, who do ya think did not show? Paul Cook. The organizers kept telling me they asked for Cook to come and could not apparently get a commitment to even have a surrogate sent as was the case with another candidate. Three videos were being shot. When I get the links, I will post but its probably up by the time you read this at the Immanuel Baptist Church (Highland, CA) website. Going to 2nd interview with Sun later day. Walking precincts in Barstow tomorrow.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014


Our Social Security system is under attack by its enemies. Paul Ryan, the spritual guru for the Republican leadership in Congress has a plan which Paul Cook has not condemned  as Bob Conaway urges he should. What is the Paul Ryan's plan that Paul Cook has been unwilling to condemn?

Social Security Goal
Ryan's Plan
Do not privatize Social Security
  • Allows workers age 55 or younger to invest a large portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market.
  • Diverts $1 trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund, where benefits are guaranteed, to the casino of Wall Street.
  • Puts the government on the hook for stock market losses.
Do not cut benefits
  • Cuts benefits by 40% for middle-income workers making about $43,000.
  • Cuts benefits by 50% for middle-income workers making about $70,000.
  • Cuts benefits even more for higher-income workers.
[Estimates from the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities]
Do not raise the retirement age
  • Raises the normal retirement age to 68 by 2027, and increases it every two years so it will reach 70 later this century.
  • Raising the retirement age to 70 is about a 20% benefit cut.

Source: It is easy to see the attacks on our benefits, but they also attack our earned benefits by dismantling Social Security's infrastructure and services, consisting of closing 80 Social Security field offices and 500 contact stations.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's latest "Path to Prosperity"
budget includes deep cuts to the social safety net, including Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps, as well as a tax reform plan that should have the 1 percent and multinational corporations jumping for joy.
According to the latest numbers, the program can pay full benefits until 2033, and close to full benefits for decades after that, with literally no changes at all. One simple tweak – eliminating the cap on the payroll tax, which currently exempts any income above $117,000 – ensures the program's solvency for 75 years. So any talk of radical Social Security changes should be prefaced with an explanation of why such changes are necessary.
Bob Conaway states: "PAUL COOK needs to tell us what his intentions are about supporting Paul Ryan's 'Path to Prosperity Plans'. I will oppose such reckless plans based upon false premises."

Bob Conaway for Congress (CA-08)
12127 Mall Blvd, Suite A-363
Victorville CA 92392
Contact No. (760) 617-8305
Contributions or gifts to Bob Conaway for Congress are not tax deductible.
Contributions from foreign nationals or corporations are prohibited.

Congressional Candidate Bob Conaway Receives American Bar Association Honor

The Dispute Resolution Committee of the Business Law Section has the announced addition of Bob Conaway [a candidate for Congress in California's 8th Congressional District], which Bob describes as "a great honor and further opportunity to serve" . Bob further stated "one of the reasons I am running for Congress is because I believe that my nearly 30 years of service as a pro bono mediator, arbitrator, temporary judge and special master could help be the difference, whatever the party composition in Congress, to moving forward legislation needed. The People deserve progress, not gridlock.   I know I can help bring people together in Congress. I have brought people together in mediations & arbitrations who did not just dislike and mistrust one another, but in some instances outright hated each other--a skill Congress regrettably needs".

Monday, October 6, 2014

The "Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act of 2014" which Paul Cook recently sent out a news memo on, is far from "transparent", is discriminatory & will drive up medical costs.

The "Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act of 2014" which Paul Cook recently sent out a news memo, on is far from "transparent", is discriminatory & will drive up medical costs.

1. Paul Cook's H.R. 3811 (he claims to be a co-sponsor) singles out insurance exchanges and ignores insurance companies and others who store far more personal consumer data--more class discrimination for his corporate sponsors--Paul Cook would let the insurance company giants like Blue Cross, Anthem, Aetna (to name a few) and their data managers off the hook under this deceptive bill.  Besides, if data security was something current protective & enforcement mechanisms could not handle, why aren't private insurers being subject to the same new proposed regulation?

2. HR 3811 would needlessly increase paperwork and costs that do not improve the safety or security of personally-identifiable information in the Health Insurance Market Marketplaces & may interfere with law enforcement investigation of any breach of confidential databases. "For example, the indiscriminate reporting requirement in H.R. 3811 may seriously impede the law enforcement investigation of a breach. is subject to strict security standards, is constantly monitored and tested, and applies security and privacy protections that go beyond federal IT standards. The data breach was contained and there is no evidence of any injury or loss to citizens.  Data privacy and security are key issues that the Committee has addressed on a bipartisan basis in the past" per the State of Administration Policy on HR 3811 [See for further information:].

Bob Conaway says, "Cook's vote poisons the well on what transparency means and is another example of his commitment to corporate giveaways and favoritism by using misleading titles to bills and media releases".

Bob Conaway for Congress (CA-08)
12127 Mall Blvd, Suite A-363
Victorville CA 92392
Contact No. (760) 617-8305
Contributions or gifts to Bob Conaway for Congress are not tax deductible.
Contributions from foreign nationals or corporations are prohibited.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Even Paul Cook's Green Initiatives[a bill to Establish the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area in the State of California and for other purposes] Smells of Special Interest Cave-in's

HR 5573 [called a bill To Establish the Alabama Hills National Scenic Area in the State of California and for other purposes"] introduced by Paul Cook, is on its face an environmentally friendly bill--but like so many of Cook's votes, closer scrutiny suggests something else is afoot.
What are the "OTHER PURPOSES"?
Why does he have no co-sponsors?
Putting aside the fact the bill won't pass in this session due to it being introduced so late by Paul Cook is question of why HR 5573 was not referred to the second of the two required committees as set forth in the language of HR 5573?
 The OTHER required committee H5573 has to go through is the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This apparently "green" bill under section 2 "m" sets into stone mining and mineral rights previously deemed "valid" and any mining or mineral rights claimed and deemed "valid" BEFORE the law gets enacted.
So with this bill, the rush could be on to expeditiously start mining and mineral extraction in the Alabama's. It in effect appears to give mining and mineral extraction folks a period within which to develop the very sort of burden on the resource the average person would think the bill prevents.
This bill is not going to pass until Cook's mining and or mineral buds get their operations underway and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources gives its blessing. This bill bombproofs those late appearing mineral and mining interest and gives them a way to come in and avoid environmental agency stoppage, even if it's in the middle of the Scenic area. The very fact HR 5573 was NOT referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources yet shows that Cook's mining and mineral extraction buds haven't gotten their operations underway (yet).
Stay tuned for the unfolding of the deception.